On Thursday, 17 October 2024 18:31:05 CEST, John Mattsson wrote:
We should have a consistent ordering of [EC, PQ] in both the
names and the key schedule. I.e., the code should be
>consistent with the naming and either the EC or the PQC ought
to always come first.
+1
(if FIPS leads to weird solutions, I think IETF should ignore
FIPS for one of them)
There will need to be key exchange groups that are FIPS compatible,
so either it will happen in this i-d, or a new one will be published.
I'm of the opinion that it's better to have fewer codepoints to test
interoperability of.
Especially if the change is completely inconsequential to people not
needing FIPS compatibility.
--
Regards,
Alicja (nee Hubert) Kario
Principal Quality Engineer, RHEL Crypto team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00, Brno, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
